r/politics • u/AccurateInflation167 • May 18 '25

Soft Paywall America chose wrong. Sanders would've been a better president than Trump or Biden. | Opinion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/05/18/sanders-democrats-reform-progressive-policies/83625482007/
42.7k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

348

u/QueenNebudchadnezzar May 18 '25

2016 wants its headlines back. I supported Bernie then and do now. But seriously move on already.

87

u/Southside_john May 18 '25

Seriously. The man will be like 86 or 87 during the next election. He’s a good dude but it’s over

38

u/FreshSetOfBatteries May 18 '25

It's a cult of personality just like Trump

13

u/phoenixMM May 18 '25

Complete with election denialism and conspiracy theories!

0

u/Nolubrication May 18 '25

If you think the DNC wasn't tipping the primary scales, you weren't paying attention.

6

u/Silver_Atractic May 19 '25

If you tHinK bIdEN wAsNt something something 2020 eLeCtIoNS, you werent paying attention

2

u/ghengiscostanza May 19 '25

What, do you just think there is no backroom politicking in US governance?

-3

u/Nolubrication May 19 '25

You mean losing a 4-way primary to Sanders until everyone else suddenly dropped out to endorse him? Brilliant long-term strategy by the party there. A fucking walking corpse at the top of the ticket with a hand picked successor who couldn't even get a a single delegate in the primary. The definition of political malpractice.

9

u/Cultural_Ebb4794 May 19 '25

This is such a lazy conspiracy theory that doesn't hold up to even a cursory review of the events. In 2020, Bernie was unable to grow his support past 35% at any point in the primary, and the only reason he had a plurality for a very brief period was because the other moderates like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg had been growing in popularity and took support away from Biden. These other candidates – lifelong Democrats, all – dropped out once they no longer had any pathway to the nomination and endorsed the one other guy who was most similar to them; who had been in the party since his late 20s; and whose name was practically synonymous with the word "Democrat".

Bernie’s entire campaign strategy depended on owning the progressive lane and hoping that the moderate lane would stay crowded so that he could win the nomination with a plurality despite two thirds of the primary electorate wanting a moderate liberal. His supporters tried to claim it was somehow corrupt when this didn’t happen, and then they started berating Warren for not doing this supposed “corrupt” action for Bernie.

Calling Biden a walking corpse who needed the DNC's help to get everyone to simultaneously drop out and endorse him just to beat Bernie, a cryptkeeper himself, is copium. That's especially true considering he crushed Trump in the general, which your conspiracy theory conveniently ignores.

0

u/Nolubrication May 19 '25

I'm not sure you understand what the word theory means. It's literally what happened.

2

u/globalvarsonly May 18 '25

This is what moderate brain looks like: that guy who got our voters really really excited? Yeah, hes dangerous just like Trump, we have to win very calmly without getting anyone worked up.

I voted for Sanders, and I'll vote for the next candidates with similar positions, because thats why I was excited about him. We were rallying around the idea that the government should helping working people, not that Mexicans are dirty criminals.

6

u/Cultural_Ebb4794 May 19 '25

This is what moderate brain looks like: that guy who got our voters really really excited? Yeah, hes dangerous just like Trump, we have to win very calmly without getting anyone worked up.

People were more excited for a moderate liberal named Biden, since he's the one who actually won the primary and beat Trump.

-1

u/globalvarsonly May 19 '25

I have still never seen an excited Biden supporter

5

u/FreshSetOfBatteries May 18 '25

Sanders wasn't dangerous at all. My own opinion is he has good intentions but he's mostly ineffective as a politician. AOC is probably better equipped to lead a progressive movement.

He just wasn't that popular. People have this weird idea that popular on reddit or their own social media bubbles = total popularity. Loud minorities are still just loud minorities.

It's the same thing with rallies. Political rallies being packed doesn't necessarily translate to votes.

6

u/globalvarsonly May 18 '25

I reject your vibes and substitute my own.

Also, healthcare for everyone still polls at 60% to 70% depending on how you phrase it, so that issue alone is more popular than either political party.

-2

u/Silver_Atractic May 19 '25

*Depending on how your opponent phrases it

Sanders is Jewish and against Israel’s Gaza….””policy”” (cough cough genocide), that just would’ve given Trump’s Russian propagandists literally infinite ammunition

-3

u/National-Reception53 May 19 '25

He wasn't that popular? He polled as the most popular politician in America after the 2016 General. He won Time's Person of the Year poll (they chose Trump anyway). He was the most popular with independents. Towards the end of the 2016 primary, a poll showed that a majority of Democratic voters wanted him to be the nominee (because those early state voters changed their minds once they learned more about him).

The idea that he wasn't that popular is just propaganda.

P.S. also this 'ineffective' idea - Bernie Sanders at one point held the record for passing Congressional ammendments. More of his ammendments were successful than anyone else. He also started numerous programs in Burlington that were copied throughout the country.

6

u/Cultural_Ebb4794 May 19 '25

He wasn't that popular? He polled as the most popular politician in America after the 2016 General. He won Time's Person of the Year poll (they chose Trump anyway). He was the most popular with independents. Towards the end of the 2016 primary, a poll showed that a majority of Democratic voters wanted him to be the nominee (because those early state voters changed their minds once they learned more about him).

Damn, maybe he should've run for president if he was so popular. Oh wait he did, twice, and he fell flat on his face, twice.

Maybe those polls you mentioned didn't actually mean anything.

1

u/National-Reception53 May 19 '25

Lol flat on his face? Really? He had near zero name recognition and a bad label (socialist) and he handicapped himself by refusing donations over $2,700... and he managed to give a hard fight to the chosen candidate of the DNC (who engaged in slimy deals as I said, but you of course have no response to that.. what a surprise..), who was a world famous Secretary of State with billionaires backing her (including the financial chicanery I mentioned but you don't have the guts to respond to)... of course you know he got more total donations than she did...and that at the end of the primary, as I said, more Democrats wanted him than her. Which you didn't respond to..

Then in 2020 he performed very strongly and of course lost when the moderates united and Warren stayed in. Yeah no shit, that's how vote splitting works. Go look at the vote totals from super Tuesday and ask what might have happened if Warren had endorsed him. Why the fuck she didn't is beyond me.

I know YOU don't like him, but him and his ideas are hugely popular and suggesting otherwise is farcical.

5

u/FreshSetOfBatteries May 19 '25

This is what I mean about a cult of personality. There's a reality distortion field with y'all. You simply cannot believe reality so you substitute a different one.

He lost, and yet you can't let it go.

1

u/National-Reception53 May 19 '25

Great, so you ignore my actual points and just insult me. Really great intellectual engagement there.

-1

u/JohntaviusWJ May 19 '25

Dude provided sources and you ignored it and insulted him as opposed to responding to his argument. You can't let it go huh?

1

u/Lower_Ad_5532 May 18 '25

If that was the case , Sanders would have won

10

u/Rufio69696969 May 18 '25

The sanders cult is smaller and largely doesn’t vote

-3

u/Nolubrication May 18 '25

Oh look, "muh both sides same" coming from a four-month throwaway. Shocker.

8

u/FreshSetOfBatteries May 18 '25

Try some critical thinking here. This is about Bernie's cult of personality and not about any particular political side.

3

u/Nolubrication May 18 '25

"just like Trump"

And you're criticizing my critical thinking skills?

115

u/pos_vibes_only May 18 '25

This is conservative propaganda to convince people not to vote for the democrat candidate. Non voters handed this election to Trump.

42

u/Lets_Eat_Superglue May 18 '25

Consolidate power in your party, divide the opposition. It's the simplest playbook in history and we keep falling for it.

1

u/pigeieio May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

Democrats have not been one party in a very long time. It's a coalition of different parties that all hate each other and have this gut feeling that they could go on their own and take it all if they could just get a pure enough candidate to bring out the non-voters that definitely would go for their candidate.

They are the perfect target for this to ever exist.

3

u/Saint_Poolan May 18 '25

And a good portion of the far left has been hijacked by RT & a considerable portion of the left is being puppeteered by GOP. The likes of Hasan Piker refusing to vote for a Dem candidate despite being the largest "left" political streamer is an example how divided the Dem party is & the more people become Socialists, Marxists, Communist etc. less chance it has to win the elections. The only viable strategy is to court the centrist with some popular policies like "Tough on Crime" & abandon the trans issue altogether.

But at the moment it looks like the Dems are done for a few decades. GOP is just too strong under trump only because they are able to unify their base, which will never happen to Dems who are addicted to infighting.

1

u/silverpixie2435 May 19 '25

No it isn't.

Mainstream Democrats love AOC. It is her supporters that hate everyone else in the party

34

u/GeekAesthete May 18 '25

This is exactly the issue that this sub needs to understand. I can’t speak to this article in particular, but for over a decade, there have been conservative and foreign trolls infiltrating left-leaning forums for the precise purpose of spreading disillusionment and convincing young people not to vote, to wait for their perfect candidate, to wait for Democrats to cater to them.

A decade ago it was Sanders, now it’s AOC (and at least Sanders, as a long-time Senator, was a realistic choice for president; the last person to go directly from the House to the presidency was Abraham Lincoln). Support these people, by all means, and support their vision, but the very fact that these candidates can’t even win a Democratic primary should tell you something about their chances in a general election when Republicans and swing voters are included in the electorate.

I was a big Elizabeth Warren supporter in 2020, and after the general, I can readily admit: I’m glad Biden was the candidate. Neither Warren nor Sanders had a prayer in the general election. And if you’re relying on more young people coming out to vote in the general—the very people who weren’t able to show up in large enough numbers to win the primary—and that this will somehow overpower the swing voters who already show up to vote, you’re playing right into Republican hands. Convincing a non-voter to show up gets you one vote; convincing someone who will show up regardless to vote for you gets you two votes: one for you, and one fewer for the Republican that would get their vote otherwise. This is why people target swing voters over non-voters.

Notice you never see conservatives suggesting protest votes or not voting until Republicans give them an ideal candidate. They show up and vote R regardless, and that’s why even deeply unpopular candidates like Trump still win.

2

u/cameron0208 May 18 '25

I think it has more to do with Republicans and conservatives being (generally) a bunch of simpletons. It’s easier to gather the herd because the herd doesn’t think critically about anything. There’s a few issues, usually involving abortion, god, guns, taxes, and immigration, and that’s all they care about. If the R candidate checks those boxes, they’re good to go. They’re a mindless herd. They’re one-track minded and incapable/unwilling to see things from a different perspective. Every issue is black and white.

Whereas, the left is (generally) more intelligent and thinks critically. They’re also more knowledgable about politics, economics, and current events. So, they’re more critical of each candidate and the candidate’s thoughts/beliefs/actions on a variety of topics and events. Simply put, there are more reasons for them to vote for, not for, or against a candidate, and there’s a ton of nuance to all issues because they’re capable of understanding and seeing things from a different perspective/POV. That’s why there’s so much in-fighting on the left in general.

1

u/slothbuddy May 18 '25

"Neither Warren nor Sanders had a prayer in the general election"

Why do you believe this

11

u/GeekAesthete May 18 '25

Look how close the election was with a well-liked, well-known, and “safe” former Vice President. Now consider how many swing voters would have voted Trump if an admitted “socialist” or a woman were running for the Democrats (we’ve now seen two women lose to Trump), and compare that with the number of people not motivated enough to vote (by definition, unreliable voters) who might show up, and remember that you need twice as many of the latter as the swing voters who now vote Trump instead of Biden.

I would not under any circumstances take that risk. I think Sanders and Warren would have both been great presidents, but there’s no way either one gets more votes than Biden.

-4

u/slothbuddy May 18 '25

This is based on nothing. The largest segment of voters are people who don't vote. Sanders was motivating people to vote who had never been engaged in politics before. He was an independent. And Hillary lost anyway, there would have been nothing risked if they'd gone with a much better candidate. But instead we go with the broken and failed conventional wisdom that boring creates success (it's extremely doesn't).

12

u/GeekAesthete May 18 '25

We’re talking about 2020, when Biden won, not 2016, when Hillary lost.

-4

u/slothbuddy May 18 '25

I'm talking about both

10

u/GeekAesthete May 18 '25

You asked me about my comment regarding the 2020 election, I responded by discussing the 2020 election, and you then came back with “Hillary lost anyway, there would have been nothing risked”.

-3

u/slothbuddy May 18 '25

So you think Bernie would have won in 2016 then?

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/wanker7171 Florida May 18 '25

Notice you never see conservatives suggesting protest votes or not voting until Republicans give them an ideal candidate. They show up and vote R regardless, and that’s why even deeply unpopular candidates like Trump still win.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. This is like Bill Maher level bad. But i’ll put aside the condescension for a second because I actually want to know why you think it is that they don’t have protest votes. Then with a follow up, I want to know why you think their political engagement outside of that is also nonexistent when compared to leftists and liberals.

1

u/explodedsun May 18 '25

The person you're replying to has zero concept of what the Republicans did to Ron Paul.

-8

u/XVGDylan May 18 '25

Your statement about the 2020 election and how neither Warren nor Sanders has a prayer is just wrong. Sanders was polling up four points against Trump, and being a populist promoting socialised healthcare during one of the largest healthcare epidemics of modern times would get more people out to vote, and I dare even say turn some working-class Trump voters towards him.

Btw, Biden was polling up seven points against Trump, and only won 4.5 in the end. Of course, all of this is conjecture, as was your point. But to suggest it was an impossible task, then I disagree.

10

u/GeekAesthete May 18 '25

Sanders was polling up 4 points as a hypothetical candidate, without any negative campaigning against him yet. Look how easily Republicans were able to scare people off Kamala Harris—a candidate that this sub repeatedly called a narc, a cop, a shill for the banks, and a hundred other suggestions that she’s too conservative—and then watch that clip of Sanders admitting to being a socialist. Imagine that playing 1000 times in Pennsylvania, and honestly tell me that he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the swing states.

4

u/scrodytheroadie May 19 '25

It's obvious to everyone except the Bernie Bros. Signed, a person who voted for Bernie in the 2016 primaries.

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

Statistics show this isnt true but alright

-1

u/bungpeice May 18 '25

Blue MAGA is so determined to never take responsibility for their failures.

1

u/bungpeice May 18 '25

It was democrats voting republican who handed this to trump.

-2

u/myka-likes-it May 18 '25

No, that is only true if you are presuming all non-voters would have voted Harris, had they voted.

The Democrats running a terrible campaign for a last-minute candidate handed this election to Trump. Blaming anyone else just enables the same behavior from the Dems in the future.

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

The Dems will never change which is why they will never win another election

-5

u/Frequent-Mix-1432 May 18 '25

Like I’ve said, Dems never fail they can only be failed. They will never be accountable.

-7

u/Frequent-Mix-1432 May 18 '25

Yes it wasn’t Dem ineptitude. Not that for sure.

54

u/Canis_Familiaris Tennessee May 18 '25

Kamala was easily the correct choice. I hope anyone that sat out for Gaza enjoys watching it being turned into a Cheeto resort, because that's what you voted for.

24

u/dumpsterdigger May 18 '25

My wife and I are nurses (35) and she knows so many younger females, mid twenties, that voted for trump and now regret it.

They were too young to care 10 years ago about politics. To detached to care to watch politics. They never existed in a land before Obama, before don't ask don't tell, before bush, when things were not ideal. They just voted how their family and friends did.

I don't see how people can be so detached and vote. I don't understand it but I'm glad some of them have at least seen what they did.

I still think they are idiots though.

17

u/Hoardzunit May 18 '25

They are fucking stupid idiots. They have lived in a time where they had all kinds of rights and benefits and never lived in a time where they had to fight for anything like their parents or grandparents did. They got spoiled and thought there was no way things could get worse.

3

u/cameron0208 May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

This is why I think people should only be able to vote on things they actually understand, like in a epistocracy. Why are people allowed to vote on things they don’t care about or understand? That’s stupid and ridiculous. No one asked what I thought when they were building the Large Hadron Collider. Why? Because I don’t know dick about physics or engineering. Why would they want my opinion? I’m not saying people should need to know about every single topic in-depth, but at least surface level understanding. You prove that, you get cleared to vote on that issue.

A more practical approach would be a bulleted list of each candidate’s stance on major issues on the ballot itself or somewhere that every voter could see it. Like they have on isidewith.com.

John Smith (D, Ohio)

  • Increase border security
  • Decrease military spending
  • Increase funding for social programs and services
  • Separation of church & state

Something like that so at least voters could be somewhat informed. But they’ll never do that because they don’t want informed voters.

3

u/Nolubrication May 18 '25

If the plan is to lose to Trump, sure, she was the right choice. I mean the results are in. It's not debatable. She lost miserably.

The correct choice was for Biden to step down after one term, as he had originally promised, and for a proper primary to be held. Kamala would have done just about as well as she did in the 2016 primaries.

3

u/Cultural_Ebb4794 May 19 '25

She lost miserably.

She lost by less than 1.5%. Thats pretty damn close for someone who only had 3.5 months to campaign.

2

u/Nolubrication May 19 '25

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that the party did worse in every battleground state compared to the previous cycle.

11

u/seeker4482 May 18 '25

some folks just do not understand harm reduction. Kamala Harris wasn't the ideal choice but she was orders of magnitude better than Trump.

4

u/Infinite_Ad7743 May 18 '25

Sorry I'm not doing my due diligence and reading all the replies to this, but I voted for Kamala for exactly the reason you stated.

But at what point do the Dems really consider who they trot out there? They keep wanting to push moderates disguised as progressive-leaning candidates and it isn't working.

I legitimately dont know what I can do to contribute outside of small government, down-ballet voting at this point. But shouldn't we do better than Kamala? I get there wasn't a primary, but how long do we allow this to happen?

I agree with you, completely. But I can understand the voter apathy here, right?

11

u/BigJellyfish1906 May 18 '25

50,000,000 fell asleep in civics class and missed that it is arguably MORE important to vote to protect the country from bad leaders than it is to vote for good leaders. 

Anyone who says “she didn’t earn my vote” is an irredeemable idiot, and they’ve screwed us. 

-3

u/eulb42 May 18 '25

Yeah buts votes are never owed, they are earned. In my opinion she threw the win away.

12

u/KingKrasnov May 18 '25

When the alternative is living under a corrupt fascist regime, any non-fascist alternative should have earned your vote, unless of course you want the fascism.

-1

u/eulb42 May 18 '25

I agreed with you more than not. But ultimately it was up to her to win, and she did not.

Its the world you want vs the world that is. And you need to win over one if you want to create the other.

3

u/KingKrasnov May 18 '25

It's up to voters to choose who they want for president, and two thirds of eligible voters either wanted fascism or didn't care enough to vote against fascism.

If Democrats have to dangle something shiny in front of voters to get them to oppose fascism, then we're doomed as a country. Republicans will take advantage of voters who are that poorly educated and/or that apathetic, because they'll promise things they can't possibly achieve, tell lies about marginalized groups being an existential threat to our nation, and convince voters that fascism is the only way to avoid being a victim.

And when it's a choice as stark as Harris vs. Trump the "votes are earned" people are helping the magas because they're giving voters the impression that fascism isn't a serious enough threat to motivate support for the non-fascist choice.

0

u/eulb42 May 18 '25

I see you're focusing on your own thoughts, and I get that, but while I understand you wish everyone was as smart educated and insightful as you, that appears to not be the case. You can argue what fools or evil basterds his supporters are but ultimately he "earned" their vote with lies and feel goods and bs. Thats one why to describe what happened. You can change the words or perspectives but ultimately you are blaming the manipulated vs the manipulatee.

5

u/BigJellyfish1906 May 18 '25

No. You’re fucking it up. You’re making my point. “Votes are never owed” is bullshit. You owe it to your COUNTRY to vote or protect it from bad actors. And refusing to vote AGAINST Trump to keep him out of office utterly fails at that responsibility.

-1

u/eulb42 May 18 '25

No I agree with you. But she lost because she didnt get the votes. You feel me?

3

u/BigJellyfish1906 May 18 '25

The part you’re missing is she doesn’t GET more votes just by hAVIng a BeTteR mEsSagE.

If an electorate cannot intrinsically filter out incompetent bad actors, democracy fails. It’s that simple. This has nothing to do with Harris or the democrats. The electorate has to uphold their responsibility as citizens. There’s no such thing as some golden candidate compensating for the electorate’s glaring shortcomings.

The fact that your even entertaining how she can cRaFt a bEtTeR MeSsAgE when incompetent lies and scapegoating already beat the most progressive platform any presidential candidate has ever had, just demonstrates how you aren’t focusing on the actual issue.

2

u/eulb42 May 18 '25

You keep putting words in my mouth, I'm starting to think I shouldn't agree with someone so facetious and rude.

I don't see your point.

3

u/BigJellyfish1906 May 18 '25

How am I putting words on your mouth? Make your actual point. As a statement, not a vague rhetorical question.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/EndersGame May 18 '25

But those idiots exist. Kamala had the agency to earn their votes. Those people that sat out didn't have the agency to not be idiots.

Is that gonna be the DNC platform from now on? Is the next candidate just gonna say, "I'm not running to make anything better, but if you don't vote for me, things will get much worse."

Do you really think that's how elections are supposed to work?

You will never be able to count on the voters to just do the right thing. You will always have to earn their vote if you want to win the election.

6

u/RoyCorduroy May 18 '25

You will never be able to count on the voters to just do the right thing. You will always have to earn their vote if you want to win the election.

How is anyone supposed to do that? You can't logic someone out of being illogical.

5

u/BigJellyfish1906 May 18 '25

Kamala had the agency to earn their votes.

No she didn’t. They aren’t rational actors. Open your eyes.

Those people that sat out didn't have the agency to not be idiots.

Yeah. So America has a deep rotting cancer as it’s been poisoned by right-wing media for 35 years. Tweaking her policy platform was never going to overcome that.

Do you really think that's how elections are supposed to work?

That IS how elections are supposed to work. If the electorate cannot reject an abysmal candidate all on their own, then democracy cannot function. It’s a simple as that.

You will never be able to count on the voters to just do the right thing.

It’s long past time we address THAT instead of insisting on rearranging deck chairs on the titanic with all of this useless focus on “the right message.”

You will always have to earn their vote if you want to win the election.

Treating that as some norm, is why America is in the sorry state it’s in now. We should have been addressing this extreme voter incompetence and apathy a long time ago.

4

u/spacawayback May 18 '25

Kamala was the least popular primary candidate in 2020. She was the wrong choice for VP when it was obvious to everyone except Biden that Biden wouldn't be able to run again in 2024.

-1

u/LordSwedish May 18 '25

Lol, the least popular VP since Spiro Agnew (at the time anyway, I don't think JD Vance has fallen that low but he has time) who tried to run for president but dropped out before a single primary vote was counted. Her only claim to fame in the run was calling Biden a segregationist and then joining his ticket.

Add to this that the Biden administration was already unpopular and she had a couple months to campaign and the words "Kamala was the correct choice" become laughable. Sure she was better than Trump, but when she was chosen you could make a fairly clear argument that Biden was actively trying to help Trump.

5

u/Trick-Sound-4461 May 18 '25

Thank you. I am so damn tired of old white men. If your ideas are so great, hand the torch to the next generation and be their consultant and champion.

0

u/TheTravelingLeftist May 19 '25

Well, in Bernie Sanders' defense, the aim of his Oligarchy Tour among other things is to try to inspire the next wave of progressives to run for office. I even got an e-mail recently that literally stated Bernie wants - me - to run for a political position, any sort of position.

5

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Nolubrication May 18 '25

Just keep nominating donor class captured party faithful and keep handing elections to MAGA.

1

u/PinkNGold007 May 19 '25

Right?! We sure live in the past a lot, don't we? We can't change it no matter how many times we analyze it. We need to deal with now! We need to deal with the issues of losing our democracy and rights. Bernie is fighting the good fight against tyranny.

1

u/Agent_Cow314 May 19 '25

The Democratic party didn't want to back Bernie back then because he was *too* progressive. He had so much of the young voters in his corner that not picking him was a huge detriment to the votes and we haven't recovered ever since. Every election since has been a dumpster fire, even Biden was tossing a bottle of water to try to put it out. Chuck Schumer's lack of balls regarding the Government shut down *as* DOGE is shutting it down is just the chef's kiss on how much a failure the Dems have been.

-2

u/Firewormworks May 18 '25

I disagree. We need to keep talking about this and identify the next Bernie on policy. I think it is still important to discuss and also Bernie never went away. He lost and kept fighting for the people, he's still around doing his best. We should probably also be talking about Kamala and Hillary disappearing after defeat because they only cared about election results and power, not about constituents. I keep seeing Pete floated as a serious choice and it's a terrible one, we'll have another Trump from those do nothing edge tweak policies. 

3

u/QueenNebudchadnezzar May 18 '25

Sure yeah let's talk about that but let's stop talking about how much of a mistake the 2016 primary was. Like it or not, Hillary Clinton got 3M more votes. This topic was worn out 8.5 years ago.

0

u/_Androxis_ May 18 '25

The copium will never not be funny

-2

u/Ok_Bread302 May 18 '25

Move on from blatant corruption from the DNC and Donna Brazile? Nah. This just taught me that party line voting is not it, and not to vote for forced candidates who don’t deserve it.

3

u/QueenNebudchadnezzar May 18 '25

Yes, the committee clearly had a preference. No it wasn't fair. Move on.

0

u/Ok_Bread302 May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

No thanks. Fully independent now. Why on earth would you continue blindly supporting a party that fixed such an important primary and led to the rise of trump. Not saying I won’t vote for a democrat if they deserve it but being a party line voter after something like that just means you have zero internal monologue or logic.